The Gormogons remember the dead.

Nonetheless, a universal connection links every living American with those who have fallen or will fall in American wars and overrides the lapses in sustaining and honoring their memories. We are and shall be connected to them by debt and obligation. Though if by and large we ignore the debt we owe to those who fell at Saratoga, Antietam, the Marne, the Pointe du Hoc, and a thousand other places and more, our lives and everything we value are the ledger in which it is indelibly recorded. And even if we fail in the obligation, it is clear and it remains.

Mark Helprin waxes in the WSJ.

Mailbaggage

Gormogon special agent Graybeard writes in:

Your Czar-ship, Czar-ness? Majesty?

In your otherwise insightful Korean essay you make an error of fact that I assumed someone else would correct by now. Since there's no mail listed, allow me.

You say "When North Korean tanks and infantry rolled into the South in June of 1950, bases all over the world went on red alert..... the conclusion in the West is that the Communist global overthrow had begun. But Miami reported nothing odd from Cuba...No Cuban marines... "

In 1950, Cuba was still under Batista. The Cuban Revolution didn't happen until 1959, so there would have been no communists to react in Cuba. Growing up in Miami, with many friends who escaped before the communists took over, and knowing others who strapped together any few pieces of junk that would float in order to brave the open ocean for days to escape that tropical paradise, that date is one that tends to stick with us.

As I say, though, not to disparage the piece.

While I'm here, let me add I've been reading your site for about a year, and it's on my regular, check-it-every-day list. I have you on my blogroll at http://thesilicongraybeard.blogspot.com/

With title-appropriate reverence,
Graybeard

Eh. Czar will do.

On the one hand, you are absolutely correct that the Czar’s memory gets a bit off by ten years. When you are 800 or so years old, you will understand. But on the other hand, the Czar was of course using code when he made reference to Cuba.

Allow us to demonstrate. If you take the decimal code for CUBA, you get 67 85 66 65. Add those numbers up, and you 283. Now run those numbers backwards (56 66 58 and 76) and you get the number 256. Subtract 256 from 283 and you get 27. 3 times 3 times 3. The obvious magic trine.

Add 27 to 283 and you get 310. Break up 310 into equivalent addends and you wind up with the numbers 75 76 77 and 82. Which you will find are the decimal codes for KLMR. Val Kilmer? Admit it: you knew the answer before you even wrote in.

That said, the Czar appreciates you not only warning foolish readers unfamiliar with our secret codes that they could make a basic historical error, but also for adding some interesting narrative about Cuban interests. Oh, and of course, reading and loving our site for the last year!

Graybeard is cool. We must keep him that way.

Meanwhile, in what must be an unrelated note, Gormogon wax ring consultant JR writes in to...it is hard to say what. Chastize? Berate? Warn? Err... something the good folks at MLB:

Memo to the folks at Major League Baseball (and quite a few others out there too).

It's wonderful that you recognized veterans today at the ball game, by having anyone who has served stand up prior to the game and be applauded.

However, if you read your history, you'll find that "Memorial Day"* is a holiday for honoring war DEAD, not veterans generally. Veterans have their own holiday, in November. It's called "Veterans Day". Printed right on the calendar and everything. You can't miss it.

Truthfully, I don't think I want to attend a baseball game where the people we're supposed to be honoring on Memorial Day are able to stand and be applauded.

So there. Hey, even better: do what the Chicago Blackhawks do. At every home game, they recongize (during the national anthem) both an active and retired military representative. One on the right, one on the left, of the singer as the fans tear the roof off with cheering. Both of them generally weep with pride at the reception.

The Amateur Hour That Never Ends

Well, Peggy Noonan pretty much nails it on the head when she says no matter what happened with the oil spill, the President was going to screw it up:

When your most creative thoughts in the middle of a disaster revolve around protecting your position, you are summoning trouble. When you try to dodge ownership of a problem, when you try to hide from responsibility, life will give you ownership and responsibility the hard way.

So what was the President to do? Dive in there and cap it himself? No, but when his Road Show and Manic Jamboree showed up with the lights and sound speakers, he elected to announce himself in charge...but then proceeded to duck each question, vanish from the scene, send a bunch of functionaries to delay response, had Janet Napolitano show up to make speeches (obviously Tim Geithner was busy), and take a vacation.

Each day, fewer people are falling for this routine. You cannot hide amateurism for long. And each time, it gets more obvious. Mr. President, this job is never going to get easier.

You claim to know this. You said yourself the other day that no President has had a harder 18 months since the 1930s. Except, looking at the last seventy years, you have had the easiest presidency. It’s just you that’s made a consistent mess of it. Well, not just you: your minions are helping you every inch of the way.

Anyway, Ms. Noonan makes a very convincing argument (if you read the whole link) that even the Democrats are now starting to realize the sad truth: this guy is another one-term disappointment.

The Fact-Challenged Administration Speaks

In this morning's Washington Post, Christina D. Romer, Chairman* of the White House Council of Economic Advisers attempts the unenviable task of defending the Administration's proposed teacher bailout plan.

Ms. Romer is by all accounts a well-educated and well-respected economist. Even when 'Puter doesn't agree with Ms. Romer, she generally puts forth a valid argument. That's why 'Puter was astonished at the hackneyed, vacuous, meritless defense Ms. Romer puts forth.

Ms. Romer makes several arguments, none of which make sense to the benighted 'Puter. Perhaps if 'Puter had spent all night sucking down mescaline and Manhattans at the Leaping Peacock, it would all make sense. Unfortunately for 'Puter, Czar will not let him drink before 5:30 p.m. Greenwich Mean Time, except on alternating St. Swiven's Days. So, we're stuck with 'Puter's first take on Ms. Romer's arguments: weak.

Let's walk through some of Ms. Romer's howlers.

Such layoffs are terrible for teachers, for communities and, most important, for students.

Translation: "It's for the children." Lame. Even the teachers unions no longer think they can get away with this one. Please, Ms. Romer, never, ever use the preceding sentence again, especially as a lead in. It makes reasonable people doubt your good faith and capacity to think clearly.

There are no hiring or setup costs. The teachers are there, eager to stay in their classrooms.

Ah. 'Puter sees. We should spend billions to keep teachers in the classrooms because it's easier and cheaper than actually creating private sector jobs. Sure, Ms. Romer. doing something by fiat is much easier. Also, 'Puter appreciates your tacit admission that the government can't create private sector jobs, all it can do is throw good money after bad sustaining government employment. Sweet.

Furthermore, by preventing layoffs, we would save on unemployment insurance payments, food stamps and COBRA subsidies for health insurance, and we would maintain tax revenue. Accounting for these savings, the actual cost of the program is likely to be 20 to 40 percent below the sticker price -- perhaps even lower when one considers the spillover effects of maintaining employment.

A bright economist such as Ms. Romer cannot possibly believe this. This is like 'Puter trying to convince Mrs. 'Puter that he had to spend $1,500 on a new 50" LED television because it was on sale, even though 'Puter knows he doesn't have the money to pay for it. Let's assume for the moment Ms. Romer is correct on her savings issue. We're still shoveling 60-80% of the allocated funds down the rat hole. Ms. Romer cites not one statistic showing that more teachers (read lower teacher to student ratio) equals better education. Nor does she claim that the remaining teachers will be ineffective in instructing the current number of students.

The American economy has made tremendous progress over the past year. We have gone from job losses of three-quarters of a million per month, in the first months of 2009, to now adding jobs -- nearly 300,000 in April. But we still have a very long way to go. Overall employment is down almost 8 million from its December 2007 peak. And for the millions of Americans who are struggling to make ends meet without a paycheck, this is still an economic crisis.

The Giant Technicolor Obama Stimulus Plan hasn't worked. We're still down 8 million jobs, even after spending hundreds of billions of borrowed dollars in a vain attempt to solve the problem. What's the answer? Apparently, to the Obama Administration, the answer is simple. Double down! We have to spend money to make money! Look, Ms. Romer, this may sell among the drunken blackjack players in Vegas, but 'Puter would like some evidence to support your claims. According to an early 2010 piece on NPR (that noted voice of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy), under the Stimulus Plan, Americans lost 3 million additional jobs. 'Puter guesses if we use that logic ($787 billion/3 million lost jobs = $262,333.33 per lost job), then spending $23 billion to save 400,000 teachers' jobs ($57,500 per job) isn't such a bad deal, ceteris paribus.**

Yes, we all understand that our budget deficit is too large. Profligate policies of the past and rising entitlement spending have created a mess that simply must be dealt with as we return to full employment. But it would be penny-wise and pound-foolish to deal with that issue by failing to allot essential spending on teachers at a time when the unemployment rate is still near 10 percent.

'Puter was waiting for this game-changing argument. ZOMG! IT'S ALL BUSHITLER'S FAULT!!1!one!! The Left's Bush hatred never gets old. Get over it guys. President Obama's been in charge for nearly 18 months now. It's all on him.

The right way to deal with a budget problem that was years in the making is by formulating a credible plan to reduce the deficit over time and as the economy is able to withstand the necessary fiscal belt-tightening. That is what President Obama is doing.

This is a variant on the shady used car dealer sales pitch. 'Puter: "How much is that car?" Dealer: "Let's talk about how much each month you can afford to spend." In essence, 'Puter can't afford the car, but the dealer can make it appear he can by putting him into a loan whose monthly payments he can afford, but which ultimately leaves him underwater on the deal. Much like Wimpy's "I'll gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today." Guess what? When Tuesday gets here, Wimpy's nowhere to be found.

Now that 'Puter's done his take down, here's a few of 'Puter's thoughts on the topic.

1. What's so special about teachers? Why not bail out construction workers? Heck, 'Puter's roads Upstate need a heck of a lot more work than his schools. Why not doctors or secretaries? How about fast-food workers? Maybe it's because none of those other jobs have a huge union ATM that pays out just for the Democrats.

2. Did Ms. Romer ever consider that the schools may be at overcapacity? That is, there are more than enough teachers available for the number of kids currently in attendance. This is similar to the GM/Chrysler bailout. Rather than force the companies to shed dead weight and become more efficient, government intervention allowed the automakers to continue unproductive behaviors.

3. Rather than throwing billions of dollars at the schools, how about lifting expensive federal mandates? It costs the taxpayers nothing and frees up local school districts to spend existing revenues where they see fit. Maybe Ms. Romer didn't consider that possibility because local control and lower taxes are anathema to the Left.

4. Why not lift the executive order permitting public sector unionization? Labor costs, driven ever-upward by gold-plate union contracts, are school districts' single largest cost. Level the playing field between unions, taxpayers and employers, and watch the savings roll in. Gov. Chris Christie's a shining example of calling teachers' unions' bluffs. Read and watch this and see what 'Puter means.

Wow. This took a lot more time and effort than 'Puter intended, but it's an important exercise. If we don't call out falsehoods, obfuscation and general B.S. when we see it, we'll never get a better government. And without a significantly improved government, we're going to be Greece.

*'Puter refuses to use the stupid, gender-neutral term "Chair." Why not use "divan" or "chiffarobe" instead? Stupid politically correct language police.

**See? 'Puter can use economist speak as well!

FFPE writ small, re: Israel

David Frum on the Left's view of Israel. You will perhaps recall this as pretty much the definition of the Fallacy of Foreign-Policy Egocentrism and your Volgi’s railing against it. For those who came in late, the Fallacy of Foreign-Policy Egocentrism states that it’s not all about you. Countries and peoples do stuff for their own reasons. The U.S. is not the prime cause of all evil (or good) in the world [nor Israel in the Middle East]. Other people are agents, not subjects.

Click the tag below for thirty-odd variations on the theme…

Great Moments In Teaching, Episode #42,797

Ms. Marla Gurecki-Haskins, where were you when 'Puter was in high school? Man, is Canandaigua (NY) Acadamy lucky to have a dedicated teacher like you on staff, so to speak.

Not only were you performing oral sex on a 17 year old student in your classroom during school hours, you still managed to find time to sext message two other 16 year old boys. Allegedly. At least it's an allegation until the jury reads the over 2,500 pages of text messages the police recovered and convicts you of rape.

In another shocking development, Ms. Gurecki-Haskins is on paid leave pending resolution of the charges against her. Thanks, teachers' union bastids!

Mailbag Follow Up: Now With 62% More Venom!

In Czar's response to Gormogon operative FJR's communique, located here, Czar invited 'Puter to get mount his soapbox and vent about religion again. Czar asked for it, so here goes.

FJR's position on religion appears to be about the same as 'Puter's. That is, you can believe whatever the heck you want about God (or gods), or believe nothing at all, so long as you're not hurting anyone. 'Puter's relatively libertarian in that respect. 'Puter won't tell you what you should believe, and you leave 'Puter and his Catholicism the heck alone.

Like FJR, 'Puter also does not understand

...why other non-Catholics get so bent out of shape over Catholic doctrine. Catholicism is not a cafeteria faith plan where you can pick and choose which doctrine you want to believe. If you don’t believe the whole doctrine then you’re not Catholic. Go be Unitarian if you want a cafeteria plan.

Well put.

In today's New York Times, 'Puter finds yet another writer, Nicholas Kristof, getting bent out of shape over Catholic doctrine. To be fair, 'Puter doesn't know what Mr. Kristof's religious preference is, if any. Frankly, it doesn't really matter for purposes of the following takedown. Although, in 'Puter's opinion, if Mr. Kristof's claims Catholicism as his faith, he's sure got a lot of explaining to do.



Mr. Kristof excoriates the Roman Catholic Church for excommunicating Sister Margaret McBride, a nun, for assenting to an abortion for another woman. The facts are these. Sr. Margaret sat on her hospital's ethics committee. A 27 year old mother of 4, three months pregnant, presented with primary pulmonary hypertension. Medical staff recommended abortion, as there was a significant probability carrying the pregnancy to term would kill or injure the mother. The family, the medical staff and the ethics committee (including Sr. Margaret) assented to the abortion.

Mr. Kristof displays the obnoxious arrogance of the morally certain. You see, it's about the "morally obtuse" hierarchy which tolerates pedophile priests excommunicating "a saintly nun" for assisting in procuring an abortion. Sister Margaret saved a life! She's a saint! Forget all about your backwards superstitions about abortion! Pedophile priest! White male hierarchy, in robes yet! Did I mention Sr. Margaret's a saint?



In support of Sr. Margaret's sainthood, Mr. Kristof cites an unnamed doctor at her hospital who writes:

[Sr. Margaret] is a kind, soft-spoken, humble, caring, spiritual woman whose spot in Heaven was reserved years ago. The idea that she could be ex-communicated after decades of service to the Church and humanity literally makes me nauseated.

True Christians, like Sister Margaret, understand that real life is full of difficult moral decisions and pray that they make the right decision in the context of Christ’s teachings. Only a group of detached, pampered men in gilded robes on a balcony high above the rest of us could deny these dilemmas.

Well, pal, true Catholics know the Church's immutable position on the grave moral evil of abortion. It's right there in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, section 2271:

Since the first century the Church has affirmed the moral evil of every procured abortion. This teaching has not changed and remains unchangeable. Direct abortion, that is to say, abortion willed either as an end or a means, is gravely contrary to the moral law.

True Catholics know that it is an offense for which the penalty is excommunication. Again, right there in the Catechism, section 2272. Let's take a gander, shall we?

Formal cooperation in an abortion constitutes a grave offense. The Church attaches the canonical penalty of excommunication to this crime against human life. A person who procures a completed abortion incurs excommunication latae sententiae, by the very commission of the offense, and subject to the conditions provided by Canon Law. The Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy. Rather, she makes clear the gravity of the crime committed, the irreparable harm done to the innocent who is put to death, as well as to the parents and the whole of society. (Citations omitted).

And, true Catholics know what excommunication latae sententiae means. That is, excommunication is automatic upon doing the act (eo ipso), without need for adjudication by an ecclesiastical judge. Basically, the act you've done is so evil, and so out of step with the Church, that you yourself has cut yourself off immediately from the Church. There's no debate to be had, and no defense for the sin. Note well, though, the "Church does not thereby intend to restrict the scope of mercy." The Church believes in the forgiveness of sins of those who truly repent. Excommunication need not be a life sentence.

And, Dr. Anonymous, true Catholics man up (even if they're women) and don't anonymously whine to a liberal New York Times columnist about the big, bad Church enforcing its clear rules. If it's not important enough for you to stand up for in front of God and man, keep your damn yap shut (said the anonymous blogger in an unintended moment of irony)!


'Puter leaves aside for the moment Mr. Kristof's baseless equation of the Church's treatment of pedophilia (rape) and abortion (murder). 'Puter will school Mr. Kristof in a later installment. Suffice it to say, Mr. Kristof is wrong.

Here's some free advice. Mr. Kristof, there's this amazing thing called teh intarwebs. In its labyrinthine tubes, one has access to all sorts of reference tools, such as the Catechism. In the future, you may want to use the Google and see what the Church actually teaches before going off half-cocked. Then again, in keeping with the finest NYT traditions, probably not.

Sadly, lost in all his moralizing haze, Mr. Kristof cannot see a plain truth. Sr. Margaret may have saved a life, but she just as certainly assisted in the taking of an innocent human life as well, that of an innocent child. In so doing, she fundamentally betrayed her nominal faith. And that's the real tragedy here.

North Korea and China: The Reality

One of the bigger, more persistent myths in the last 60 years of Korean history is the role of China.

When North Korean tanks and infantry rolled into the South in June of 1950, bases all over the world went on red alert. Why? Because despite the fact only a limited invasion was taking place on a limited scale on a limited peninsula, the conclusion in the West is that the Communist global overthrow had begun. But Miami reported nothing odd from Cuba. Berlin shrugged and said the East Germans were quiet. Turkey saw no one. Tokyo reported nothing. No Cuban marines. No Russian tanks. No Chinese paratroopers. No Mongolian horsemen.

The concern was then that the North Koreans had jumped the gun, possibly due to a missed hold order. But no, as North Korean armies rolled South to dwindling opposition, nothing else seemed to be happening. Indeed, the communication traffic patterns in the Communist countries were too active, as if they were scrambling for information. Is it possible, the West boggled, that Moscow and Peking were confused?

Over time, it became clear the Soviets were just as bemused by the North Koreans, and even tentatively offered some slight help until it became clear that the North was not intimidated by the Soviets. Instead, it was the Chinese who showed interest. This puzzled the West, because it never really occurred to us that the Soviets and Chinese not only had different forms of Communism, but were two very different countries and actually were starting to wear on each other to a great degree.

When the UN—and of course the Czar means the US—finally shrugged off their post-world-war stupor and got into the game for real, the North Koreans were pounded back even faster than they initially advanced. China, unhappy with the Soviets and their dismissive (even cavalier by Chinese standards) attitudes, saw an opportunity to make a name for themselves. With what appears to be very little permission or coordination with the North Koreans, the Chinese stormed into the peninsula.

Remember that Mao was seen as a military genius because he made plenty of speeches about taking potshots at the Japanese. It turns out the Chinese were wildly outclassed even by bored, partially-trained and under-funded American teenagers; however, the massive Chinese manpower allowed waves of Chinese bodies to slow American firepower, prolonging the war. It also turned out that the Chinese knew as little about the Americans as we knew about the Chinese.

Forgotten in the next three years of the war were the North Koreans. By war’s end, China realized their limited foray into expansion was hopelessly ruined, and they went home, leaving Kim Il Sung with a ruined, broken country and a sorely strengthened case of paranoia. But like all good paranoid dictators, Kim used that fear to fuel his already advanced megalomania. He was still in charge of the North. He had survived the American onslaught. He had turned them back. He was, after all, victorious.

For the next six decades, North Korea continued to stew in its own ruined juices. The enemy was the South, and if Dear Leader so wanted it, he could resume overt military action and finish the South off. China, their big neighbor to the North, was so convinced of this that even they volunteered to help the North in the early 50s...although to be honest, the Chinese efforts were underwhelming although appreciated at the time.

Meanwhile, China turned inward. Helping the North Koreans was a horribly costly decision financially, and exposed how under-prepared the Chinese were for actual combat. Generals vanished, the military reorganized, and maybe Mao was not the military visionary he thought he was. As for the North Koreans, they were led by an embarrasingly nutty old man who was very good at starting fights for no reason. North Korea was like that crazy, foul-mouthed uncle who only gets invited to the very largest weddings at the last possible moment in hopes he declines. You never have him over for the kids’ birthdays, or any place where alcohol is served. In fact, the less said about him, the better.

North Korea was like that crazy, foul-mouthed uncle who only gets invited to the very largest weddings at the last possible moment in hopes he declines. You never have him over for the kids’ birthdays, or any place where alcohol is served. In fact, the less said about him, the better.And this is the way it remains to this day. The State Department, in a series of presidential administrations, repeatedly demonstrates a failure to understand two basic elements about Korea:

1. North Koreans care only about North Koreans. This principle of 주체 (ju che) is practically a religion. You do not accept outside help from anyone, ever, at any time. If you are dangling from a cliff, you spit on the rope anyone hands you. China naturally should respect the North Koreans and even be in considerable awe of their greatness; beyond that, they should keep to themselves. Unfortunately, China tends to be a meddler in things that are not her concern. The North Koreans resent the arrogance of China as well as her progressive acceptance of American values like capitalism and free expression. Unreported but quite real border incidents between the Chinese and North Koreans continually remind the North that China looks down on Korea as a puppet state. So screw the Chinese: we turned back the Americans in 1954; we can certainly hold off the Chinese and their jump-suited bugle boys.

2. The Chinese see North Korea for what it is: a dangerous wild card that exists only to upset the region. Over the years, various Chinese optimists have attempted to exploit the North Koreans as a potential political player, a great investment opportunity, and an outstanding business partner; all these efforts failed. Today, the North exists only as a political pawn: after all, when the Americans grow frustrated with North Korea, to whom do they turn? The Chinese! When else does America depend on China? Not Iraq, not Iran, and not Afghanistan. In reality, the Americans despise China on all other foreign policy fronts; but not when you deal with North Korea. Privately, the North Koreans are a major pain in the ass. Thousands of their uneducated and diseased denizens try to cross into China each year. Those who make it across become instant welfare nightmares for China: North Koreans cannot work without skills, and they need massive medical treatment and aid. Those who get caught are sent back and promptly killed, which grates on China’s limited sense of human ethics. What is China to do with this immigration problem?

So why does China put up with the charade? Because China is convinced that the North will fall. North Korea must: it is propped up by nothing but ju che. When it falls, which it should have in the 1980s, there will be phenomenal opportunity for investment. A collapsed North Korea, almost certain to be incorporated into the South, becomes a gold mine of Chinese industrial investment. The South, and likely the Americans, get stuck with the gargantuan bill for medicine, food, public aid, and education: the Chinese carpetbag their way in with construction companies, telecommunications, and utilities and reap a fortune. There are billions, if not a trillion, dollars worth of opportunity in the North.

So let the charade continue. The North is a pain in the ass like that crazy uncle: but an uncle who is dying and happens to own a ramshackle house on a significantly wonderful piece of hot real estate. Pretend to like him, because when he goes, he will likely leave you that property. In other words, maintain the appearance that when it comes to North Korea you are a team player; that way, when it falls (which you hope it does soon), you will be warmly invited to feast at the funeral lunch.

And now it is 2010. The toothless Americans are trying to calm down the jittery nerves of South Korea, which is already causing bad fluctuations in the regional stock markets. Secretary of State Clinton has asked China, as her predecessors have done for three generations, to talk to North Korea and use their influence to impress the North on cooperation.

Now you know why this never achieves results. Because China does not actually do anything. Why should they?

In response, America needs to do two things:

1. Recognize that North Korea will never listen to anyone and that influence is impossible. The more you isolate them, the more they buy into ju che’s success. Instead, start crippling them: sabotage their military. Jam their leaders’s communications and interfere with their extravagant lifestyles. Continue the propaganda machine that shows how prosperous the South is. Simply, realize that ju che is a powerful control weapon (even a loss becomes a win) and take it apart. Sanctions, diplomacy, isolation, and threats only strengthen the weapon. None of these will ever prove successful against North Korea, or she would have fallen in 1956.

2. Write off China’s help. To actually help in North Korea is a conflict of interest for them. As long as you do not impede their ability to invest and make money when North Korea actually falls, they will let you do whatever you want. Or pretend, for their investors’s sake, to let them play a part. Whatever. But do not fool yourself into thinking that China’s interest extends even a millimeter past her own pockets.

Mailbag: Mind, Spirit, and Body

Meanwhile, Gormogon operative FJR writes in after a too-long absence:

I wanted to thank you for the recent video post of Hayek & Bork. What a marvelous video.

You are quite welcome. The Czar, though, had nothing to do with it; that is pure Volgi.

I also wanted to thank Mr. Ghettoputer for his excellent post on Catholicism. Although I am Baptist I have never understood why other non-Catholics get so bent out of shape over Catholic doctrine. Catholicism is not a cafeteria faith plan where you can pick and choose which doctrine you want to believe. If you don’t believe the whole doctrine then you’re not Catholic. Go be Unitarian if you want a cafeteria plan. Heck, for that matter stick a rabbits foot in your pocket because it’s obviously not absolute truth to you, it’s more of a superstition. I am not offended by the Catholic Church’s adherence to their doctrine or the fact that they do not consider my denomination part of the catholic church (universal Christian faith).

Now this one was Ghettoputer, and we hope he comments separately. Listening to the Czar talk about religion is pretty much like hearing a fish talk about breath control.

Lastly, I have growing aggravation towards post on blogs demonizing the BP executives and BP in general. I am not an oil rig expert or a deep water drilling engineer so I can only imagine how difficult it would be to cap a pipe spewing oil and volatile gas one mile underwater. So tricky in fact that the original capping process caused the initial explosion and rig collapse. I do work in construction and know that things can go terribly wrong, terribly quickly. Other than assist in containment and cleanup of the spill I don’t see how the Government can provide any qualitative input to help cap the leak. I would be more concerned if the Government was trying to cap the leak because they consistently prove their incompetence. I recently had a project for [some military folks] to repair a very large, very old leaking fire main pipe underground. We worked as quickly as we could under difficult conditions only to have the repaired pipe burst at another joint. All the while the [military] folks were wringing their hands and screaming that it was taking too long. Screaming that it has to be fixed NOW is never helpful. My little problem wasn’t an environmental disaster so I can only image how BP feels. I do know that BP is more motivated than any other entity on the planet right now to get the leak stopped. My personal opinion is that unless you have a constructive solution to cap the leak then you need to shut up and help with the cleanup.

Sorry that was so long but I’ve been saving up my oil leak frustration for some time.

That’s okay. We are, frankly, a long way from determining who is the ultimate cause of blame for the catastrophe in the Gulf. Tweren’t us, though. We can, however, worry about who is to blame later, although the Czar easily predicts there will be a lot of it to go around. Meantime, it is fair to wonder why the efforts to contain this have gone horribly awry, and why the State of Louisiana finds it necessary to write off Federal assistance as though it does not exist, and so on. Had this happened five months ago, the President would have raced down to the Gulf to talk about... healthcare. The guy just ain’t cutting it.

As we go along and have time to unravel the blame, the current administration is going to look as bad as BP or even worse simply for failing to deal with the containment merely to score political points.

The Economic Engine

Dr. J writes in:

GE/Rolls Royce had an advertisement on the radio asking me to call my congressman to ask him to support funding their jet engine program for the F-35. After my so-called Blue-dog Democrat voted for TARP, the Omnibus Spending Bill (after voting against it), Cap and Trade and Obama-care despite my phone calls to his New Atlantis office, I would feel like a total tool calling requesting the funding of a specific engine. What are your thoughts on the GE/RR engine compared to the Pratt & Whitney Engine.

The Volgi, GorT, and very likely the Mandarin will have their own opinions given their respective histories.

Actually, to the Czar, this is more interesting than some readers might first think. The Pratt & Whitney F135 engine is dueling with the General Electric F136 engine to see which one gets selected for the F-35 Lightning II jet fighter. And the battle between the two aircraft engine giants is getting nasty and way colorful.

Here it is. The PW F135 is actually made up of some fairly well-established technologies (and much of it is in use on the F-22 with no real problems). The design advantage here is that it uses far fewer parts than other conventional afterburner-type engines; the real design innovation is the computerized monitoring system that will allow maintenance crews on the ground to get real-time data about the engine and identify problems right away. In some cases, we predict, the flight crew can get replacement parts ready for tired equipment before the part actually fails, and swap out the critical component quickly and easily upon landing...in order to get the plane back into the air in minutes. That is fairly cool.

The GE F136 is an engine competing for the same job. It is a tiny bit less powerful, and is a bit smaller than the F135 design. It, too, uses fairly familiar technology; however, it uses a design called a twin-spool turbolift that uses less fuel. A smaller, lighter engine with less fuel consumption means the plane can go much longer distances with the same bag of gas. In military terms, that’s called a greater combat radius. Very cool.

So you might think this is about power versus economy, right? Well, not really. The problem began when the Pentagon decided to go with the PW F135 engine because it works well on the F-22 and that means fewer crews to retrain, greater availability of parts, and therefore less expensive to own and operate.

GE disagreed with the decision, and opted to promote their design as an “alternative” design. After all, they spent millions on their design and development, and would rather not write that off as a loss. So they began to attack their competitor, suggesting that the PW engine is already way over budget and, you know, not as good. PW says they are on budget (although this is not known for certain), and the F135 design works better.

Further, PW says that GE will build the engines in England, and not by American workers (which GE has not exactly denied). GE countered that PW would become a virtual monopoly, since they are already building most of America’s military aircraft engines. PW fired back a list of so-called single suppliers for other military components, demonstrating that there is a difference between being a sole source and a monopoly. You lost; get over it.

Then a Pentagon memo got out that expected the GE F136 engine might cost $3 billion more to develop, making it on par with the PW engine costs. In response, GE offered to sell the engines at a fixed price: if the costs go over, the taxpayer assumes no further hit if the F136 is selected.

Except that GE got bipartisan Congressional funding to research the GE engine as an “alternate” on the taxpayer dime under the pretense that the fighter could use, you know, maybe an “extra” engine. The sponsors of the funding effort were, by no coincidence, all from Ohio. And if the engine gets purchased at a fixed price, the GAO concluded, that could save money.

PW quickly launched a bitter campaign to kill any further Congressional funding for the GE design, claiming it is an engine no one wants, asked for, or needs. The Pentagon agrees with PW, and even Secretary Gates recommends cancellation. GE is firing back with a please-fund-us-more campaign of its own—which is where Dr. J’s letter joins us.

So there we are. One hopes this is the worst battle the F-35 ever sees, although it is a pretty publicly wild one by defense contracting standards.

The Czar’s thought? GE is a major donor to the Democratic party, and by and large, the pro-GE support has been nearly all Democratic (the President appears to have no iron in this fire; this has all been Congress). Basically, thanks to pork barrel funding, GE is being paid with taxpayer money to do a design development job that GE should be paying for as part of its own costs. The Czar thinks that PW did their job, designed a great engine, and whatever the merits of the F136 might be, the F135 won out. We should not be paying billions to GE for an engine that will likely see little service either way. Meanwhile, we are crippling our F-22 force.

An interesting side note. Readers will spot that Dr. J refers to a “GE/Rolls Royce” partnership. In fact, Rolls Royce is actually involved in both engine designs: both GE and PW are using the same engine lift system made by Rolls Royce. This allows the plane, with either engine, to handle very short take offs and near-vertical landings. However, Rolls Royce has elected to build the VSTOL lift systems in Indiana. GE smartly and quickly referred to their design as the GE/RR F136, and thereby won Indiana Democratic Senator Evan Bayh ’s support for the funding...even though PW/RR would also build the lift systems in the same plant. But Bayh failed to realize he wins either way. Nuts, eh? Hey, Bayh: read the fine print next time.

It Isn't Just You

A majority of Americans think the President’s handling of the oil spill has been poor.

Re, Re: Dammit Mandy

Wow, so far this evening we have had a staff-fighting bear, a kung-fu monkey, a karate dog, and a donkey suicide bomber.

I not quite sure if this is just some weird coincidence or the plot to a new fall sit-com on NBC.

Either way, I good with it...

Re: Dammit, Mandy

The Czar for one welcomes this progress.

Here is Gormogon operative TD and friend, in an early experiment.



Here is why we gave up on monkeys all together. You can even hear a Gormogon operative (not sure whom) comment why.



Once the Mandarin got going, we had better progress as seen in this early test video from 1960:



And ‘Puter, always jealous, did not quite do as well with his army of dogs.



Pathetic. So enjoy the bears!

Donkey Show

After seeing the movie Shrek Forever After this weekend your Mandarin's first thought when reading the Jerusalem Post headline “Donkey Detonated on Gaza Border,” was that their movie reviewer also saw the film.

But in reality it turns out that this was a headline for a story about an actual exploding donkey. According to the story, a small Sryian-backed terrorist group in Gaza loaded 200 kilograms of dynamite onto a cart pulled by the late donkey. They then sent the donkey down the road and detonated his explosive payload 60 meters from the concrete security barrier that separates Gaza from Israel. The Israeli military confirmed that the blast had occurred and that only casualty was the donkey.

I would normally say that these terrorists were a bunch of jackasses, but in deference to the slain donkey and his family, let’s just say that jackass would not be the appropriate term. Rather, let’s call them by the more appropriate and less offensive to donkeys term cock-sucking spawns of hell. Although I'm sure that I'll be getting hate mail from various members of the poultry industry after using that term.

Well, it looks like the Israeli military will now need to step up their surveillance efforts and start checking out everyone’s ass. And upon half-reading about these new surveillance efforts in some poorly written newspaper article I’m sure that some feminist group's dimwitted spokeswoman will vehemently protest this close inspection of their asses and decry the violation of their human rights and how they are not to be objectified and treated as sexual playthings.

But then addressing the inability of the press to write a coherent article, and the low level of reading comprehension displayed by the fine products of union run schools is another post for another day...and that day may be coming sooner than you thought.

Dammit, Mandy

I know you're excited about your Crimes Against Nature® experiments, but for 正名’s sake, keep them off the internet. Otherwise, how the hell are the Freemasons going to be surprised when we hit them with your army of Bōjutsu Bears? Huh?

Another Great Hockey Wager

And now, the stage is set.

Dr. J, the Royal Surgeon of the Gormogons, has agreed to a typically friendly wager with the Czar over the outcome. The Czar wishes that all who fear and obey him know the terms are as follows:

In the event Dr. J’s Flyers win, the Czar shall bequeath unto him a four-bedroom Inupiat igloo (with optional skylight, as pictured), Norwegian fjord horse, and this pole vaulter, just in case our royal surgeon needs some vaulting done around the house while Mrs. Dr. J is busy with the kids.

And in the event the Hawks defeat the Flyers, the good doctor shall offer up a Vesuvius victim made of Spam, a singing piranha, and a winter-length badger hat.

Let the games begin.

Biological warfare in the 1940s

These attacks, orchestrated by Japan’s infamous Unit 731 between 1932 and 1945, are the only documented mass use of germ weapons in modern times. Scholars say that we will never know exactly how many were killed. Sheldon H. Harris, the late American historian, estimated in a pioneering work that between 10,000 and 12,000 Chinese prisoners perished in the bloodcurdling experiments that Unit 731 performed in Japanese-occupied Manchuria. Another 300,000 to 500,000 civilians died, he wrote, as a result of Japan’s massive germ assaults on more than 70 Chinese cities and towns. China itself has disclosed no official tally. In fact, for many years, Japan’s use of biological weapons in China was largely forgotten. Only recently has a resurgent China begun to remind Japan—and the world—of the atrocities.

If you have a strong stomach, read on.

Did you feel that?

The earth is moving under our feet. In a development that’s rather jaw-dropping in light of historical attitudes, the Russian Orthodox Church is proclaiming itself “no longer a competitor but an ally” of the Roman Catholic Church when it comes to the revivification of the moribund Christianity of Europe.

Wow.

I mean, wow.

First Man in Space

Later this summer, we will celebrate the 50th anniversary of the first man in space.  Wait, GorT, you're wrong, Yuri Alekseyevich Gagarin's flight was on April 12th, 1961 making last month the 49th anniversary.  Well let me introduce you to Colonel Joseph Kittinger, USAF, Retired.  Col. Kittinger was part of Project Excelsior which was a series of experiments around high altitude bailouts.  After two jumps from around 75,000 ft, one that nearly ended in disaster, he boarded the Excelsior III for his record-setting leap.  On August 16, 1960, he stepped off the Excelsior III gondola at an altitude of 102,800 ft.  This remains a US Air Force record today.  Over three-quarters of the mass of the Earth's atmosphere is within 36,000 feet and the lack of pressure (only 5mm of pressure versus about 780mm on the ground) and heat makes 100,000 feet a very inhospitable environment.  As you watch the video below, note that during the ascent his right glove developed a malfunction which caused his hand to swell to twice it's normal size.  During his free fall, he reached a speed of 625.2 miles per hour - close to the speed of sound.  He spent over 13 minutes and 45 seconds in descent.  You can read more about Col. Kittinger here - quite the impressive man.

Understatement of the Year Award

"Congressman Eric Massa [(D-NY)]was a little bit crazy."

This from Esquire magazine's July 1 edition according to the WaPo. Other interesting tidbits? OK. Here goes:

1. Rep. Massa contemplated suicide on several occasions.

2. Rep. Massa pulled a Kennedy and had to be recovered on the Washington Monument grounds late at night after washing down some Ambien with booze.

3. Rep. Massa hit on the male writer who interviewed him for the Esquire article.

The currently unrepresented constituents of New York's 29th District can take consolation in the following: there'll likely be only 28 districts in New York after the 2010 redistricting is completed.

Kumbaya Christians

E.J. Dionne is the Washington Post's gift that keeps on giving. Take a gander at his op-ed column in today's WaPo.

See, Mr. Dionne believes conservative Christians could learn a thing or two about Jesus from being more like -- you guessed it -- liberal Christians. There's so much wrong with Mr. Dionne's logic that it's difficult to know where to begins, so we'll just start at the beginning.

1. In the first several paragraphs, Mr. Dionne relates his respect for Rep. Mark Souder (R-IN), who recently resigned after being caught stepping out on his wife with a (thankfully) female staffer. Mr. Dionne liked Rep. Souder, even though Rep. Souder ultimately revealed himself to be a hypocrite, so long as Rep. Souder agreed with Mr. Dionne's liberal understanding of Christianity. Souder partnered with Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-PA) in pouring more money into inner-city education and hanging out with former governor Mario Cuomo (D-NY) in a feel-good, hopey-changey, faith-is-important-to-me conference. To Mr. Dionne, a good conservative Christian is one who agrees with the obviously correct liberal interpretation of Christianity.

2. Mr. Dionne segues seamlessly from "a good conservative Christian is really a liberal Christian" schtick into his "conservative Christians are divisive haters" schtick. 'Puter got intellectual whiplash from Mr. Dionne's unintelligible (thought not unexpected) transition into conservative bashing. To Mr. Dionne, anyone who opposes gay marriage is self-righteous and against family values. Did it never occur to Mr. Dionne that conservative Christians may simply be engaging in the age-old tradition of fraternal correction? Did it never occur to Mr. Dionne that one can be a sinner, even a hypocritical sinner, and still be correct on the merits of the argument? Mr. Dionne seems to be arguing backwards from a conclusion he has already reached: anyone who disagrees with a liberal Christian (mis)understanding of the Gospel is prima facie wrong. Evidence to the contrary be darned.

3. Mr. Dionne throughout conflates being against gay marriage with "holding in contempt our homosexual relatives, neighbors and friends." That simply does not follow. One can think gay marriage is a bad idea for any number of reasons, and still support gay relatives, neighbors and friends' quest for equality. Mr. Dionne cheats the argument that marriage, as has been defined in Western tradition for thousands of years has been the union of one man and one woman. If Mr. Dionne would like to change that definition, the burden is on him, and he has not met it. It is facially insufficient to claim we should abandon a bedrock tenet of Western civilization because some people's feelings are hurt.

4. Mr. Dionne only quotes Bible passages he likes, such as: "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone." (John 8:7). This catchall admonition is presented without reference to numerous other, more applicable, Biblical passages. Mr. Dionne conveniently leaves out: "And if thy right hand offend thee, cut it off, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for thee that one of thy members should perish, and not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." (Matt. 5:30). Or how about "The fear of the Lord is the beginning of wisdom: and the knowledge of the holy is understanding." (Prov. 9:10). Maybe: "Do you not know that the wicked will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders nor thieves nor the greedy nor drunkards nor slanderers nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God." (1 Corinth. 6:9-10). 'Puter can play this game all day. Mr. Dionne's protestations notwithstanding, the Christian perspective on homosexuality and marriage is not nearly so clear cut as he would have you believe.

Mr. Dionne blathers on for an entire column without recognizing the self-parody inherent: his baseless and unsupported accusations have made him every bit as self-righteous and hypocritical as the caricatures of conservative Christians he has bravely vanquished.

Republican Wins Hawaiian Congressional District

You read that right. Hawaii, a usually stalwart Democratic state, has put its first Republican into Congress in a very long time. Yes, in Obama’s old district when he lived there.

The Czar has had the opportunity to hear Rep. Djou speak. Keep your eyes on this guy. He bodes well for the GOP’s slow realization that the candidates they need should be not-another-old-white-guy types who try to court the center. Djou leans far right, and does not apologize for hit. He is resoundingly anti-tax, and has a long-term goal of revamping the US income tax system to a much simpler and inexpensive arrangement. And he is big on deregulation to keep the free markets booming and job happy. He also resists attempts by the Democrats to get bogged down in their pet topics during debates, instead deflecting the arguments back to what he wants to talk about. The opposition hates not being able to steer the discussion to their talking points.

Mind you, he is filling a vacancy, and must endure a general election in November, 2010. With luck, he will hold it all together and impress voters on the need to re-elect him for the full term.

The President’s sister, Maya Soetoro-Ng is a registered voter in that district, and oddly refused to reveal for whom she voted, saying “I think generally we need to remember we are one ohana and as long as we participate and vote we will work it out and find a good solution in whoever is elected.” You will remember these as the opening lines of Lilo and Stitch.

Daley Hopes For Violence Against Supreme Court

Chicago’s Mayor Daley takes a lot of crap from all sides. But the uncomfortable fact is that he is a really good mayor by Chicago standards: although hated by many on the right, one cannot escape the fact that he has transformed the city from a decaying, under-employed collection of scary neighborhoods with pockets of culture into a world-class city with hundreds of museums and attractions, high-priced condominiums, and a technology sector second to Silicon Valley. Chicagoans have paid a price in terms of higher taxes and astronomical real estate prices, but the popular Chicago associations of Cabrini Greene and Al Capone have been replaced by Millenium Park and Michael Jordan.

But the Mayor has an obsessive compulsive weakness: he is pathologically terrified of firearms. Long-time readers of this site, and almost any other, are aware that Chicago enacted an illegal ban on firearms in 1982, which eliminated all but sporting shotguns and a precious few rifles.

And you also know that despite all claims to the contrary, the crime rate in Chicago has exceeded the national norm. In fact, it was as bad as Washington DC, which of course had its own handgun ban. Something about handgun bans in large cities seems to drive up the crime rate; perhaps you can figure out why without our help. Things are so weird in Chicago that the crime statistics are deliberately kept in a manner incompatible with the Department of Justice’s methods, so that the DoJ is unable to point out how askew they are in its annual report on violent crimes. Chicago always has an asterisk.

Lately it appears that the Supreme Court of the United States is moving toward declaring the firearm ban unconstitutional (as it is), and allowing citizens at the very least to own handguns in their own homes (concealed carry is still forbidden except for his bodyguards, aldermen, and active or retired police). Boy, that must torque Daley to know his bi-monthly tirade against firearm crimes (and subsequent demand for increased gun control) is a failure.

After all, this is the guy who sued American firearm manufacturers unsuccessfully (but enough to cause Colt to drop its civilian weapon program) and is now going after foreign manufacturers as well.

And he’s the guy who used a horrific slaying of a popular police officer as a political prop in his latest stunt by saying that, had he had his way, the punks who shot him would not have had the guns to do so (ignoring the fact that the officer’s father—a retired cop who is among the few to carry legally—shot two of the attackers dead with a handgun and saved more lives).

But not so fast. In fact, the Mayor accepts the reality that his beloved ban will be overturned: he instead will make it bureaucratically impossible for Chicago residents to own firearms. Through a combination of expensive paperwork, background checks, and training requirements, the Mayor will ensure that no one will seriously take the time to complete the entire program. Other places do it, so why not Chicago?

This is not what irks the Czar. Instead, it is the dangerously violent terror the Mayor exhibits. Two cases in the last 24 hours:

When a reporter asked the Mayor to explain exactly how his handgun ban could remotely be considered a success, the Mayor offered to shove a bayoneted rifle up the reporter’s rectum and pull the trigger. He has quasi-apologized for the comment in a fully insincere but characteristically incoherent rant. Of course, saying you apologize is not as valuable as actually doing it. He has, in fact, not apologized to the reporter in question but merely suggested he could.

Two—and far worse—the Mayor revealed another violent spasm when he said “You have to have confidence in the Supreme Court, Maybe they'll see the light of day...Maybe one of them will have an incident and they'll change their mind overnight, going to and from work”

Tire screech. The Mayor hopes that someone will attack a member of the SCOTUS with a firearm and convert them to being anti-gun? Maybe on their way to or from work, someone will use a handgun on a Justice? If the Czar made such a comment, he might expect a visit from people in suits.

Mayor...no one in their right mind makes comments like these. You have betrayed your illness to everyone as just that: a derangement. Maybe you will see the light of day and get treatment. In the meantime, you do not seem to be disarming your cadre of drunken aldermen and your own personal bodyguards from their dangerous weapons. How loud is your cognitive dissonance?

Social Issues and Political Party

You're liberal if you think the government is empowered to tell you how to behave in every room of the house except your bedroom.

You're conservative if you think the government is empowered to tell you how to behave in no room of the house except the bedroom.

You're libertarian if you greet the government on your front porch with your shotgun telling it to get the hell off your lawn unless it's got a warrant before it gets a chance to open its mouth.

Do WASPs Eat Their Children?

They might, if they were the yellow dwarf star WASP-12. One of its planets, WASP-12b, is so close to the star’s surface that the intense heat and gravitational tide are literally dissolving the planet into the star. Even then, calculations show the planet has about 10 million years left.

This is what happens when you piss off the Mandarin.

Re: Compare and Contrast

In this post below, 'Puter, in his inimitable fashion, returns to his comfort zone: public sector union bashing. Sweet, sweet union bashing. Can there be anything better? Anyhoo.

Last night's mail delivered a thoughtful challenge to 'Puter's position from Sam Robb, who blogs over here at The Embedded Theologian. Sam Robb writes:

Posted on my blog, but it's short, so here it is in it's entirety for you:

Via the Gormogons, in an post on public teacher's unions:

Unions have but one function: improve their members' wages, benefits and work conditions at all costs.

Compare this to the statement:

Public companies have but one function: improve their investor's earnings.

Explain to me how the two statements are fundamentally different, and how we can hold one voluntary organization of individuals who are primarily concerned with making money to be better or worse than another voluntary organization of individuals who are primarily concerned with making money.

'Puter thought this to be a fair question, so he responded thus (slightly edited for readability):

'Puter thinks his post was clear on this issue, but it could have been clearer.

Short answer: The difference between the corporation and the union in your two statements is the nature of the relationship between the capital and the employer entity. In the corporation, the capital is voluntarily provided. In the governmental entity, the capital is involuntarily taken. This is the critical difference.

'Puter was primarily concerned with teachers' unions in the post, which are public sector unions, not private sector unions. While related, 'Puter believes private sector unions are fundamentally different from public sector unions and should be treated as such. 'Puter doesn't particularly like unionization in today's employment world, but private sector unions are far less noxious to 'Puter. Here's why.

Public sector unions, at least in New York, are not voluntary associations. New York is not a right to work state, and the education system is a closed shop. Nor is the taxpayers' association with public sector unions voluntary. Taxpayers cannot choose a different product (private schools) and take their money elsewhere. Taxpayers are required to contribute to the sustenance of the union beast. In this closed cycle loop, the public sector unions take mandatory union dues (paid by many unwilling taxpayers), contribute them to like-minded politicians, who then grant the unions gold-plated salaries and benefits. This cycle has run unimpeded for years in New York and has been the prime driver in its current fiscal crisis. There is no consideration of profit in the government employer/government unionized employee relationship. Politicians raise revenue (read taxes and fees) to reward the unions for their patronage, and taxpayers can do nothing about it. They are not free to take their capital elsewhere. Nor, as a result of the vicious cycle described above are taxpayers able to dislodge entrenched politicians to short-circuit the cancerous process.

Corporations, and, as a result, private sector unions, are much more constrained, as the flow of capital (shareholders, bondholders and customers) supporting the company is dictated by product quality and profitability. Shareholders and bondholders flee companies that are not operating well, and they are free to do so. Customers are also free to take their money elsewhere for any reason, or no reason whatsoever. Therefore, private sector unions are far more constrained in negotiating terms and conditions of their employment. Private sector unions cannot insist on terms and conditions of employment so unreasonable that it prevents the corporation from turning a profit. Further, unions cannot make demands that affect product quality negatively, lest customers flee drying up the life blood of both the corporation and the union: money. Similarly, capital will flee companies that have significant labor strife, as risk is increased. This (along with outmoded labor laws) limits the ability of corporations to impose their will on employee unions. Generally, the relationship between private sector unions and employers is much more equal, primarily due to the ability of capital to reward good actors and punish the bad. No such downside exists in the public sector.

'Puter supposes that's not entirely true. Private sector unions can (and have) run companies into the ground before. See, e.g., GM, Chrysler. The UAW was so greedy (and management so accommodating) product quality plummeted, reputations were destroyed and the companies ultimately failed. Well, at least until the government ignored bankruptcy law, screwed the bondholders and rewarded the UAW by saving their metastatic contracts, leaving GM and Chrysler zombies saddled with crap products and unsustainable legacy costs.

'Puter thinks that answers your question. If not, please respond and 'Puter'll try to do better. 'Puter appreciates the good faith in your argument, and, while 'Puter and you may end up disagreeing in principle, this is still a worthwhile discussion to have.

See, boys and girls? That's how to have a grown up discussion. Sam politely disagrees with 'Puter and shows his work. 'Puter politely responds, showing his work. Debate ensues. Enlightenment may (or may not) follow.

Grownups disagreeing without yelling. What a concept.

Another Compare and Contrast

What 'Puter failed to mention was that the Volgi doled out compare and contrast assignments* today so here's mine.  I'm sure he'll give me a B+ because I don't include enough foreign languages.

Event one: Mexican President Felipe Calderón was invited by the President to speak to a joint session of Congress.  In this speech, the Mexican president berated the Arizona immigration law for encouraging, if not requiring, law enforcement officials to racially profile in order to enforce the law.  Consider that this is a foreign head of state standing in our own legislative house by invitation of our own President, decrying legally passed legislation.  What was the reaction?  The democrats gave him a standing ovation and the White House did nothing to downplay his potential interference into our policies and governance.  Can anyone reading this consider for a moment what would happen if President Bush went to Mexico and stood in front of their governing body and blasted them for having strict laws (which they do) on illegal immigration?  For the purposes of comparing and contrasting, let's consider the crux of the Arizona law's language:

For any lawful contact made by a law enforcement official or a law enforcement agency…where reasonable suspicion exists that the person is an alien who is unlawfully present in the United States, a reasonable attempt shall be made, when practicable, to determine the immigration status of the person…

Event two: Mexican President Felipe Calderón follows up the speech with a visit with CNN's Wolf Blitzer.  Amazing and to his credit, Blitzer presses Mr. Calderón on the Mexican immigration laws.  Here is the exchange:

BLITZER: So if…
CALDERON: — (INAUDIBLE).
BLITZER: So if people want to come from Guatemala or Honduras or El Salvador or Nicaragua, they want to just come into Mexico, they can just walk in?
CALDERON: No. They need to fulfill a form. They need to establish their right name. We analyze if they have not a criminal precedent. And they coming into Mexico. Actually…

BLITZER: Do Mexican police go around asking for papers of people they suspect are illegal immigrants?
CALDERON: Of course. Of course, in the border, we are asking the people, who are you?
And if they explain…

BLITZER: At the border, I understand, when they come in.
CALDERON: Yes.
BLITZER: But once they’re in…
CALDERON: But not — but not in — if — once they are inside the — inside the country, what the Mexican police do is, of course, enforce the law. But by any means, immigration is a crime anymore in Mexico.
BLITZER: Immigration is not a crime, you’re saying?
CALDERON: It’s not a crime.
BLITZER: So in other words, if somebody sneaks in from Nicaragua or some other country in Central America, through the southern border of Mexico, they wind up in Mexico, they can go get a job…
CALDERON: No, no.
BLITZER: They can work.
CALDERON: If — if somebody do that without permission, we send back — we send back them.

BLITZER: You find them and you send them back?
CALDERON: Yes.

Re-read the above emphasized portions and contrast that with his admonishment of the Arizona laws.  Maybe the Mexican president is like our Attorney General Holder and he hasn't read the Arizona law.  Here's a new thought for the current administration: let's adopt the Mexican immigration laws and ENFORCE them.


* Note that I think the Czar beat it to the Leaping Peacock and the Mandarin is locked away in his lab (I see sparks coming from under the door at least) so I doubt they'll get their assignments in on time.

Scientists Differentiate Ass from Elbow

The Czar is of course a dear fan of science, but not the media. Sometimes the two collaborate to tick us off, though.

Two studies caught our eye in the last 24 hours.
1. Scientists link processed meats like bacon and bologna to heart disease and stroke.

2. Scientists determine obese children more likely to suffer from bullying.

First, whenever you see the word “scientists” in a news story, your first reaction ought to be “How many? Two? Three?” Because the real story is like this: two scientists write a deep and complex paper and get it published in a periodical. The editors of the periodical write an abstract for it. The journalism school doofus who gets assigned the job of Science Editor scans the abstracts and decides to translate a part of it into a news story as best as he understood the gist of the abstract. Bang. Done. And it will be incorrect or woefully incomplete. The tip off? The headlines or intro starts with the word scientists.

However, in this case, these are pretty stupid studies. Allow the Czar to save the community more time.

3. Scientists discover that Czar’s ball peen hammer hurts when swung into their heads.

4. Scientists agree that proving the obvious does no good at all.

5. Scientists find that working for common good and knowledge is received more popularly by public.

There. All better.

And This Time, We Mean It...This Time

The US state department says there “will definitely be consequences” for North Korea following the sinking of a South Korean warship in March.

No kidding. There always are consequences with this administration; this is the first time, though, they seem to admit there will be a screw up.

The incident was widely known, especially here at the Castle, to have been a North Korean hit on the South Korean corvette. No doubt it was the US State Department who immediately crashed down on the South, telling them to hush it all up because it might, you know, make North Korea even crazier. All sorts of ridiculous stories came out about hitting a sea mine, or a fire in the magazines, or Nemo’s Nautilus, or a sea serpent, dutifully reported by the media. But then the South Koreans ruefully raised the ship and managed to find the actual North Korean torpedo screws still embedded in the wreckage.

So once again we hear tough talk from the Obama State Department. And you know what that means: more toothless sanctions designed to starve out an already starved out country. To what end? North Korea is just about at the point where war would actually improve the people’s lives overall.

Compare and Contrast

Randi Weingarten, head of the deceptively benign sounding United Federation of Teachers*, argues in today's Wall Street Journal that public education is every bit as deserving of a bailout as Wall Street is/was. After all, it's for the children.

Meanwhile, 'Puter's pretend-girlfriend Megan McArdle argues convincingly that it is primarily teachers' unions that are barring the schoolhouse door by fighting tooth and nail any meaningful school reform whatsoever.

Again, for those of you who came in late, teachers' unions care not one whit for your children. Individual teachers do, sure. But teachers' unions? Not at all. Unions have but one function: improve their members' wages, benefits and work conditions at all costs. As Ms. McArdle notes, New York State Unite teachers fought reforms thereby tanking up to $700 million in additional federal "Race to the Top" funding. So the next time a teachers' union tells you it's for the children, tell them to stuff it in their food hole.

Were it up to 'Puter, he would respond to Ms. Weingarten's public education proposal thus. We are happy to provide states an additional $23 billion in federal money to be lavished on highly compensated public school teachers. In return, each state receiving funding must: (1) become a right to work state, including public workers; (2) immediately terminate all defined benefit retirement plans in favor of defined contribution plans; (3) revoke permanent tenure; and (4) remove lock-step pay increases (i.e., implement pay for performance). It's for the children, after all.

*'Puter wants a modification of the National Labor Relations Act to require that all unions actually use the word "union" in their names, along with their profession, geographical coverage and a unique number. For example, "United Federation of Teachers" would become "National Teachers' Union #57." "New York State United Teachers" becomes "New York Teachers' Union #34" The "American Federation of Labor" becomes "National Catchall Workers' Union #2." Let's call them what they are: ugly, soul-sucking collectives.

Stormtroopers!

Much more toy-stormtrooper awesomeness here.

Emporium Gormogonicum

You probably noticed a little book carousel that appears to the left. What? You haven’t clicked on it? What?

Go ahead. No, it doesn’t force you to buy anything. It simply takes you to a listing of our favorite books, films, music, quick reviews of various titles and topics, and of course way more of that Gormogon humor you all love so much.

Visit the Friends of the Gormogons library to see what’s there. You not only read some of these great folks already, you probably are some of them!

Did you know Luc Besson tends to wander into our Castle from time to time, especially when he forgets his way home from the Leaping Peacock? He very cleverly includes something he saw in our Castle in every one of his films. Check out the list, watch them all, and see if you can spot the Gormogon reference. Hint: there may be more than one.

Check out the Mandarin’s Book Club to see what he is reading when he isn’t polarizing the thermosphere with ionized plasma.

Visit the Czar’s library to see what blood-stained literature is on the shelf of yours truly.

See GorT's Technical Repository and be amazed, and delighted, by what lurks within sector 42 49 54 45 20 4d 45 of his brain unit.

You can find everything from History, to Politics, to Lesbian Vampires (really!) there. More is being added all the time. Please keep returning!

And yeah...if you see something good, buy the damn thing. You can trust us. We already run most of your life.

Another Way for Dork Nerds to Waste Time

The oddly-still-in-business PCWorld has an...interesting online article the Czar found on how to install the Android OS on your iPhone.

Apparently, it takes 32-bit Linux system (or virtual Linux machine), a bunch of uncompiled utilities available on the web, some firmware for the iPhone, and something called tarballs, which is not the sort of thing you go around telling people you have. And about a dozen hours to complete 25 steps like “Extract utils/oibc, utils/loadibec, and prebuilt/openiboot.img3 from the prebuilt tarball into your ‘idroid’ folder.”

If you can do these things, you can wind up with an iPhone that boots up and offers you a choice: an iPhone with a lot of its original programming hacked up (and which Apple can no longer support), or a Droid interface...that does not support critical apps like power management, runs painfully slow, and sucks out the iPhone’s battery in under an hour.

Here is the truth of it, dorks. Nobody wants to do this outside of your basement.

Nearly all iPhone users like what they have and have few if any real complaints about their device. Or AT&T’s hit-or-miss service. They are beautiful machines that work as advertised.

But if you like the Droid phones so much, the Czar has a simpler suggestion. Go get one. Trade in your iPhones, lose the lousy AT&T service you are spot-welded to, and pay about $50 for a top of the line Droid. By the way, if you elect to stay with AT&T, you will find the Droid works better with AT&T than many iPhones do.

Or you can choose to have a phone that is either a crippled iPhone or a uselessly incomplete Droid.

Yeah, that was worth the time.

Gubmint bureaucrat…classicist…poet?

In the hot Washington afternoon, in one of those endlessly bustling government offices, there sits a man named Michael J. Astrue, the fifty-four-year-old head of the Social Security Administration. Competent, organized, bald, and busy, he is not a politician, exactly, but one of those people who has to live in a highly political world, trying to make what the politicians come up with actually work. …

Across the city, in the only slightly less hot Washington evening, in an apartment overlooking Georgetown, sits Astrue’s opposite, a man named A.M. Juster: formalist poet, comic versifier, and classical translator. Eight years ago, Juster won the Richard Wilbur Award for his collection The Secret Language of Women (2002), besides publishing book-length translations of Petrarch (the 2002 Longing for Laura) and Horace (the 2008 Satires).

Anagrammarians among you (though perhaps not the author of this piece) doubtless, and correctly, note the identity of M.J. ASTRUE and A.M. JUSTER.

Great piece on a fascinating guy whom the Gormogons would love to buy dinner and listen to.

Congratulations!

Your Gormogons would like to extend their heartfelt appreciation to Rep. Joe Sestak (D-PA)*, picture right, for kicking bitter, angry octogenarian Sen. Arlen Specter (D-PA) to the curb in last night's Democrat primary.

As John J. Miller at NRO notes a background source stating, "There are two kinds of senators: Republicans who don't like Specter and Democrats who don't like Specter." You can now count Pennsyltuckians generally among those who don't like Arlen Specter.

*Gormogon Brainteaser: Rep. Sestak is the uncle of one of the Castle Gormogon denizens. Which denizen is it?

A Pocketful of Mumbles

Such are promises. All lies and jest.

That pretty much sums up the Obama Administration's "win" in getting the United Nations Security Council members to agree in theory to meaningless watered-down sanctions. See specifically the chart at the end of the article that details the absolute capitulation of Secretary Clinton to secure the votes of Russia and China.

Let 'Puter say this slowly so that even State Department employees can understand it. Security Council sanctions will not work. Why? Because it is in Russia and China's national interest to support Iran against the United States.

Russia and China both have large financial stakes in Iran. Russia is building ostensibly peaceful nuclear plants for the mullahs. China purchases (and covets) Iranian petroleum. Russia and China both have extensive trade ties with Iran as well.

Even better from the Chinese and Russian perspective, Iran occupies American attention, keeping our focus off what they're up to. China is aggressively projecting its power in the Pacific, and forging relationships with South and Central American dictators. China is cleaerly bidding to challenge American supremacy. Russia is slowly but certainly reverting to totalitarian form internally, and pursuing an ever-growing sphere of influence externally. Anything that makes the United States focus elsewhere is good news for Russia and China.

Russia and China have absolutely no intent of enforcing or abiding by any United Nations sanctions, whether these or any other. It is not in their respective national interests to do so. Their promises regarding Iranian sanctions are not worth the paper they are printed on. And it is not in America's national interest to pretend otherwise, regardless of what Secretary Clinton and her elitist striped-pants sycophants in Foggy Bottom would have us believe.

The Obama Administration's repeated resort to diplomacy and sanctions merely delays the inevitable choice America must make: confront Iran or capitulate to it.